##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

WRIT PETITION NO. 8841 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. JOHN RODRIGUES AGED 72 YEARS

S/O LATE SALVARODRE RODRIGUES R/AT 'EMJON', OPP. ROSHNI NILAYA KANKANADY, MANGALURU - 575 002

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION Dig itally

LALBAGH, MANGALURU - 575 003.

signed by GEETHA P G …RESPONDENT

Location :

HIGH (BY SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-09-2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K. MANGALURU IN M.A NO.6/2024 IN SO FAR AS REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO RESPONDENT FOR FRESH ENQUIRY IN PROCEEDING NO. E8/CR25/23-24, AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 321(1) AND (2) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT,

WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A; ETC.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. A neighbour of the petitioner appears to have lodged a complaint to the respondent about the construction put up by the petitioner on his property. The respondent has initiated action against the petitioner and passed orders under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in M.A.No.6/2024. The trial Court came to the conclusion that a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner to defend his case and hence, the matter was remanded to the respondent with a direction to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said order

reads as under:-

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026

HC-KAR

"::ORDER::

The appeal filed under Section 443-A of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is allowed.

The impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the respondent/Commissioner under Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act and final order dated 03.08.2024

in E8/CR 25/23-24 are set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the respondent with a direction to hold fresh inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant to show cause as provided under Section

321(1) and (2) of The KMC Act.

Office is directed to send back the records to the concerned office forthwith along with the copy of the

order for further action in the matter."

2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this

writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the trial Court ought to have allowed the appeal in full and was required to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and should not

have remanded the matter back to the respondent.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18036 WP No. 8841 of 2026

HC-KAR

4. The reasoning given by the trial Court for passing the

impugned order are as follows:-

"9. The argument of the appellant is that after filing of the present appeal, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 02.03.2024 on I.A.No.I by staying the impugned order challenged in the appeal. The order sheet further reflects thereafter as per order dated 02.05.2024, the interim order was extended till further orders and it is still operating against the respondent. The respondent after appearance has not

made any efforts seeking for vacating the interim order.

10. The appellant has filed a memo and produced copy of the order dated 03.08.2024 in E8/CR25/23-24. As per the said order the learned Commissioner has passed final order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act by confirming the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 challenged in the present appea